Archive for May, 2013

Fightin for the people

May 14, 2013

This defense in my hometown municipal court admitedly over something miniscule, worked. However the issues it raises, were not delved into. The court was not a catlyst to passion and change, but very cold blooded, and uncaring about the general ills of society, i pointed out, that it is possible for court to improve.

Vic Fedorov

219 Yardville-Allentown Rd

Yardville N.J. 08620

HT 152492

Driving without license(since renewed)

May 8, 2012

Judge Douglas Hoffman:

First let me say I am grateful for the police officer discerning I was driving without a license, because I was unaware of the fact, and needed this brought to my attention. My license had expired at the end of 2012. I was unaware of this and failed to renew it because I had moved once, in 2011, to a new address, and got my license changed to match my new license, and then moved again, to Yardville, upon which I tried to change the address on my license, for which the dmv corresponded I would have to do this in person. When I received my renewal of my license by mail form, I confused that as corresponding to the issue of getting my current address on my license, and so neglected to renew. This was disorganized, I know. I was distracted by a case I have before N.J. Appellate Court which attracts a significant portion of my attention and concern. (A-000478-12)

However, my conscience would twinge, if I did not bring up the following in this motion, and seek relief of dismissal or otherwise, in its consideration.

1) Peaceful Assembly is a form of local decision making through ayes and nays of all present, or quorums of hundreds. It was practiced in N.J. into the 1900’s, in New England today, and in classical times. This is what is protected in the bill of rights. This is what is abridged by local officials, and their incorporation through the state constitution of 1947.

2) The tenth amendment, (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.) reserves powers not given to the federal government by its constitution, to the state or the people. Local officials are neither. The tenth amendment is violated. This ignorance and difficulty accepting this, is due to our media and education being ignorant. If these assertions, were in the domain of our news media, they could be readily apprehended and discussed honestly. As they are not, it seems our dialogue and ability, restricted to what media covers. This makes our media suspicious. The only way to explain it, higher power. Yet that too, is not covered, by that that deems importance and public. Yet it is important, for courts to consider this, and to see the hypocrisy of enforcing laws, while unaware of the important ones, which allow an illegal concentration of local power.

3) Rule 7:7:1 states if an ordinance is unconstitutional, it is not valid. “A defense or objection capable of determination without trial of the general issue, shall e raised before trial by motion to dismiss or for other appropriate relief, except that a motion to dismiss based upon lack of jurisdiction or the unconstitutionality of a municipal ordinance may be made at any time” This latter is what I assert and seek.

The entire structure of local organization is unconstitutional. A mayor, who is neither state, nor the people; appointing a municipal court judge; exercises a power not given to the federal government, in defining how local offenses are handled, so then do you have the right to adjudicate? The structure of police, defined by ordinance created by local officials, is thus unconstitutional. While I completely agree the offense of an expired license, wrong, and worthy of correction, which I have done, see enclosed, I am inflicting collateral damage in my assertions, upon the forces empowered to punish local offenses; with the intent of rendering their authority here, to fine me, nugatory. Again, I seek this relief, out of my ability to apply laws, and the inherent good within: consistent with political power being inherent in the people, and their right to alter and reform government to public benefit. In no way, do I not understand your situation and predicament, and am grateful for your consideration and court. To me, this matter, is not a man-made one, but signifies something greater, and worthy of consideration, important, consistent with court.

4) State v. Barchevski 181 N.J. Super.34, 436 A.2d 550 speaks to this. “A defendant has an essential and fundamental right to interpose a defense based on the invalidity of a legislative or quasi legislative action upon which the prosecution is predicated.” “The Law Division apparently overlooked the authority of the rules of  the court above cited, which expressly recognizes the right and opportunity of a defendant in a criminal or quasi-criminal matter to attack, by way of defense to the charge,…the validity of the regulation upon which the charge is based”

5) Recognizing here, Article 1 2a of the N.J. Constitution, is analogous to be certified as class action. Class action is for economic relief, and lumps together cases so they may adjudicated easier: And so that people of less means, may petition for redress of their grievance, against a corporation of much greater means. 2.  a.  All political power is inherent in the people.  Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.

I argue, 2a, enables the same for political issues. A recognition, of a need for reform or altering government, in this case the manifestation of state constitution, and/or seeking such, for public benefit; empowering the party pursuant to 2a, serves same purposes, of enabling taking on a government whose ways are much stronger than the individual; and forcing the courts to deal with issues, it otherwise, ignores, or easily avoids.

Class action has been supported by the N.J. Supreme Court,
Consistently, and I hope courts here see the analogy of
purpose for political concerns, such as here.

6) In this sense, you may see this motion as a writ quo warranto, questioning the authority of the authority over this case.

7) This protective action combats unconstitutional deprivations, consistent with the 14th amendment, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

8) As I have little faith, in your ability to manifest concern for these larger issues,  I ask you respectfully dismiss the case, aware, that my license, long renewed.

9) Pursuant to title 42 Section 1983 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory
relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.   

 

 

                         Gratefully Yours

                  Vic Fedorov

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLEADINGS
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLEADINGS regarding
Vic Fedorov
219 Yardville-Allentown Rd
Yardville N.J. 08620

HT 152492
Driving without license(since renewed)

For Hamilton N.J. Municipal Ct
Pleading 1

1) Having brought this up before, people make two mistakes, I wish to preemptively address.

2) The first is that peaceful assembly is a form of protest. It is not. What is protected is a form of local decision-making by the people with ayes and nays. This is practiced in New England towns, which require quorums of 240. Was practiced in N.J. into the 1900’s; and a form to registering popular opinion throughout classical times. (This is a good issue for courts to balance)

3) The second mistake, alleges, if the tenth amendment reserves powers not given to the federal government by U.S. Constitution, to the state or the people; the state can give those powers to local officials through an incorporation of the Constitution of 1947 of N.J.. This also is frankly ignorant. Local officials are neither state nor people. The law library is filled of the annals of state legislature regulating towns, town by town. But the constitutional alternative to that, is ayes and nays by many locals in peaceful assembly, not incorporation.

4) I’d like to explain how these misgivings can be had. These two concepts, of the same nature, in the bill of rights, are neither taught, nor known through news media. That these are ideas are outside the realm of public opinion, and unintroduced, so there is not formula or knowledge for the mind to draw upon. We can see how limited and close we are, to what public opinion is aware of. Do not disparage ideas with ignorance, address the issue of ignorance, per professional concern.

Pleading 2

1) Both article 1 2a 2. a. of the new jersey constitution “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it,” and the notion of class action, accomplish similar goals. They force and enable courts to examine and address, what power and authority, may weigh against. (As does the right to petition the government for redress of grievance”)

2) Certainly there is a class action concern, to the issues of local official and local government in general; But in particular, to Judges and Prosecutors and Public Defenders, not being chose by local officials, but the state or the people.

3) If you can not be entrusted with constitutional concerns, may I through the courts, reassure you, that unconstitutional appointments, absolvable?

4) These concerns can addressed in motions for relief, or dismissal, but they are undeniably class action concerns, and article 1 2a, gives us the chance to affirm the benefit and discussion of these benefits honestly, in court. For Article 1 2a, seems naturally meant to invoke in a court case.

5) When we individuals disparage the classical notion of the people coming together, and thinking together, empowered and awakened, by peaceful assembly, it is not on the merits of peaceful assembly, but hiding something preceding local community. They have yet to realize the absence and absolution truly peaceful assembly attains—the recognition the people haven’t come together, because they couldn’t. And the recognition corruption, and perversion, can keep authority from leaning in this right direction.

6) Rutgers Law Journal: 2012 ” The N.J. Supreme Court extended the virtues of class action device as a means of gaining equal access to Justice for those who have small claims and unqual bargaining power.” Lee “Class action is a devise that allows an otherwise vulnerable class……thus providing a procedure to remedy a wrong that might otherwise go undressed.”

Plead three: What I expect

Hamilton Township Municipal Court
Judge Hoffman
Summons Number HT152492
Violation Date 1/23/13

State v. Victor A. Fedorov

Pleading: How I expect the matter to go

1) How I expect trial or hearing to go
2) Make as easy to see as possibleg local officials violate tenth and abridge peaceful as possible, includes appointing local judiciary.
3) No right to your authority, appointed wrong; case going around where ca.prosecute for marijuanna, as schedule one, when recognized medicinally – dismissal, further inquiry
4) To be sure, you prosecute and reform people, so fair for me to attempt so with you.
5) 7:7:1grounds for dismissal. ETrust in people who know law
6) Judiciary and local officials, by concentrating power, create vulnerability to criminals, statutes need judges. So th.is violation of appointment; super concentrates local officials and judges through appointment, whatever graft is possible, a little more simple now.
7) The corrupted are least likely to circle or peacefully assembly, for they fear their past deeds. Yet were decisions made in local peaceful assembly, public benefit, very good
8) The second part then would be your decision to dismiss case, as court is constitutionally constructed, and 7:7:1 ; or realize there are important issues here to act on for public benefit.
9) At this point, I would cite article 1 2a of the N.J. Constitution, which empowers people to reform government, as made for the court s, much the way right to petition government for redress of grievance has “government” meaning “courts” ex A and petition, a court term. We may have the right to alter and reform the government at all times, but the law only realistically applies in court.
So the third part would be what I compel through this. 2a, and we can discuss these options.
These are remedies to suggest, we could invoke under2a. a) Report the flaw to appropriate state agency, judicial or legislative b) Refer case to law division c) What would you do, suggest? d )make this an agenda item council meeting the 16th, by which I mean include the issue of letting the people assembly and make local decisions with ayes and nays of all present. e) Inform the media of this issue f) Discuss how this omission and ignorance and corruption of law go on, the only answer is a spiritual explanation, that explains how easy this scenario is created. This last discussion would have wide ranging effect

Hamilton Township Municipal Court
Judge Hoffman
Summons Number HT152492
Violation Date 1/23/13
State v. Victor A. Fedorov
Plead 4
1) I Could use some feedback, It’s not about the case, but you, the system. Do you need more focus on the facts, the laws; or more focus on the spiritual.?

2) Why not have responded to me, raise issues in advance of the court? That would be professional.

3) Because it’s obviously true, and a bad situation, and you would have corrected it long ago. If you can’t have corrected this in the past, how can we expect a professional reaponse now?

4) This implies the situation is out of control, and local government, bad for its flaws. You would know this better than me. Out of control, unlawful situation, by which I mean, you can’t control it. Can you admit you see the hypocrisy here, as so many must, before you.?

5) What holds you back; from correction, from responding in advance? Is the crime nexus making money off local officials and courts, threatening you? Are you worried the exposure of unconstitutional local incorporation, across the news media, will embarrass you? Or, are you as restricted now, as you have always been, by higher power? Is the lord here? Holding you back?

6) For these questions, I need to call the prosecutor to the stand and if he ably objects, any official should do.

7) Is it possible to get into a discussion of how control by higher power is possible?

Pleading 5 More about the stand

8) Now to me, the matter, is not about my case, and laws therein; but the ability of judges to enforce law; We are not a nation of law, but a nation of judges, limited to what judges are capable of, and not the free and easy rule of law. We can have good, just laws, in our constitutions protecting peaceful assembly and reserving powers to the state or the people; but as we see, without judges to enforce them, without journalists, and lawyers aware of them; these laws do nothing; are the sugarcoating of a constitutional apple with a rotten core. The work is here is critical, mysterious, important, and beneficial to public and state.
9) So we have to get into the issue of whether officials are held back, by their acqueiscence to crime, and all the interests who ostentasibly benefit from ignorance, or whether this totalitarian and constitutional nature is caused by higher power, as such seems beyond human will and desire. Do you believe there is a design, to constitutions, to facilitate crime hiding behind few officials?
10) Have you ever of these laws cited they way I cite them? Is the illegality of this system, ever factored into your thinking.? Can I ask if you know of crime, or criminal integration into system, and would that hold back a recognition of law? But then how would the media, and how would lawyers not know of this? There is no purposeful cover-up, is there, of the virtue and validity of local decision-making in peaceful assembly, that you know of? If you are aware of this, would you or would you not, see and correct this, and why. What do you think of the equation that surmises these lapses in law, are through God? Do you feel any control upon you?
12) This is a huge thing, the ignorance of local benefit of local peaceful assemblies; Is it too big for you to deal with? Where is the psychology of seeing something wrong and correcting it. Don’t you do this for a living? Is questioning your own authority, honestly too hard? Or just beyond what God allows?
13) We need to understand how the state is thinking, for which we’d like to call an official, preferably the prosecutor, and or a policeman, to the stand.

It’s like we have a real problem here is judges can’t understand this.

Notes from a law library

May 7, 2013

I was reading at a law library, and thought I’d share my notes.

One of potential concerns of post revolutionary, pre-constitutional, America, was protection against standing armies. As the second amendment legitimized militias, for leverage should the federal government encroach; so each former colony, in the 1780’s had one of three policies regarding armies. One was to have a standing army, which a few did; another was a policy of being able to call up an army if needed, and a third, was not to worry about having an army. The notion of a federal military, that wasn’t standing, but to be called up as needed; the protection from the concept and actuality, of an army, during times of peace: was considered a potential amendment. It’s a very nice concept, we’ve forgotten, or fail to hold as a goal. Our incentives have lessened: There is less carrot on the stick, then there was 200 years ago.

Rhode Island and North Carolina did not ratify the federal constitution.

There is too much emphasis on a free press in the constitution. It is the first right. I’m not against a free press one bit; but thinking a free press, will stave off bad leaders, isn’t true, because our press isn’t free. They don’t report the Kingdom of God, or Heaven, or any other ways and terms towards that phenonoma described by those terms. The press is the most atheistic an therefore unwise thing about. The press, is a function of History, which the kingdom of god is made for. I’m not against a free press, but all the stock placed in it. I’m for creating a free press, but there is no free press now, only perhaps relative to say communist states, nor was there one much back then. So the emphasis given to a free press, in context of History, is deceptive and designed towards the same negativity of History; the put down of Humanity in History, through the ages.

I was reading an article in the Cornell School of Law that explained Thomas Jefferson was not a big separation of church and state guy at all. Back then they “asessments” where a portion of taxes went to support religion. Jefferson did stop that in Virginia. But the universities he founded, he expected religion to be taught and core requirement. What Jefferson thought no laws respecting religion intended, was the federal government was to have a hands-off policy upon religion: And thus leave the states to regulate religion as they saw fit, per tenth amendment. It was about limiting federal government, not allowing them to make laws respecting religion, not prohibiting states from the freedom to deal with religion as they saw fit. And yet, as a statesman of Virginia, Jefferson authored bills outlawing work on the Sabbath, as well as protecting religious activity from disruption, through the threat of jail sentences, to disrupters; slightly reminiscient of Putin’s incarceration of those women who bared their breasts in church to protest Putin. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions are fairly specific about ensuring religious freedom, not protecting government from religion.

Now this is very interesting. While the context for Constitutions, and branches of government, is classical times; the states of Rome and Carthage, the tribes of Italy and Europe, the confederations, leagues and city-states of Greece; generally had Senates, Judicial process, and main leaders, and constitutions: there was a multitude of religions, or rather palpable phenonoma, pagan times worshiped. There was an array of them, from Isis to Jupiter, to Venus to Fire, to meteor stone that landed on Earth; and each and any State, generally respected all of them, but chose to especially focus on one or a few; like Rome, with Mars, would condescend to Jupiter; and The Volsaci Tribe would worship Vulcan, or Fire, and Egypt, Isis. So one was aware of the literally hundreds of different phenonoma and ways to worship, but each state or tribe had its own favorites, which culturally defined that state or tribe. If there were many objects and forms of worship, would separation of church and state be conceivable, or is this a condition circumscribed by the paucity of religions today, the limitation of Christianity being so prevalent, and pagan religions, pagan as nonchristian, so few? The answer would be the actual effectiveness and gain of those form of worship. Should any spiritual practice gain benefits, from consensus, to observation of palpable phenonoma, the proof is in the pudding, and relevance directly related to productivity.

I interpret one specific level of “Congress shall make no law respecting religion” as allowing Congress to make a law that disrespects or bans a bad religion. This interpretation has classical roots. The Roman Republic, generally liked all religion, assenting to the popular spirit, religion, the pagan worship of palpable phenonoma, was good. Pagan tribal times, where daily local circles were frequent, didn’t have atheism. Atheism arose with the state, with governments proclamation of the sanctity or existence, of the individual; or more so, with History, for History really grew after pagan tribal times, and History ascribes all to Humanity, and little to Creators, from the universe, or afterlife, that control Humanity.

Thus, because of the multitudes of different religious forms, Rome would scrutinize and liscence each applying to practice in Rome. Generally they would approve very nearly all of them, and even respect them in ceremony; yet they understood, a religion could be bad, could be used to corrupt spirit and be destructive, and so, religions had to be liscenced by the state. Notably a sect of the religion of Baal, (Baal centered on an awareness of the sun and moon) that had only female priestesses, and castrated a few monks for them, and encouraged it’s men to be drunks and run maypoles to obstruct traffic, and its women to learn healing arts, and treat upper class women, and so gain some wealth; this religion for instance, was allowed to travel through and practice in Rome, for it could be nomadic, like traveling hippies, but not allowed to convert any from the city of Rome.

Any debate on Religion and Government,  must recognize our age of basically one religion in America, Christianity. Again, that is a little Not like religious freedom, to have such a dominant religion. Our Constitutional Structure is based on classical times. Our constitutional structure signaled a death knell to medieval times, and warring kings. Yet Constitutional structure, in classical times, was in context of many, many religions. A villification of religion by government, or popular sentiment, can only come, I think, when there is only one or two religions to choose from. If we returned to a world of many palpable forms to choose from to worship, would there be any context for the elimination of the relevancy of religion to government?

Federal government, contrasted to state government, for Jefferson, consistent with a popular spirit back then that resisted federal government, spoke for federal government handling foreign affairs, and states, their own domestic concerns.

Now I think the federal government, may trump state government, by the following morale: that as representing more people, than state government, it has an inherent larger quantity of goodness and morality, and that is why we turn to the federal government to protect our rights, when smaller state governments violate them.

The prevailing attitude for government was “seizing doubtful ground”. Amputate or unempower states, so they could not war each other. Worry about insurrection, by having a tight control upon the people, such as the power to enforce taxation. And yet I have to say; this is overly uptight. See how the states relate first, before condemning them, the principle, is act, if there are complaints, or problems, otherwise let be. There should be no statist impulse to resolve, what isn’t conflict. And that ripples a problem to today. The complete authority of the state, often embodied by the judiciary, over citizens, a great problem today; stems from worry and anxiety over insurrections and wars between the states and being conquered by European powers, and disrespected by Indians, 230 years ago.

Jefferson’s sentiments imply that a federal government, that unites and rules smaller states, is more likely to tend to monarchy, or that forebearance, than smaller state governments. I suppose the principle, the greater the ocean, the more power its leader may assume; yet it is true, our presidents dominate and lead policy, and are focused on by people, obsessively; whereas our governors, are more prone to the trappings of state legislatures, and less the cult of personality; so this axiom seems true.

Of course the problem with government, is it is not honest, fundamentally: and this is not government’s fault, when History, (herself) is not honest, in exactly the same way. Yet it is also true, that smaller governments and less prone to faults than those over larger areas, and Montesquieu points to the famous example of Rome, as a Republic over Italy, was fine; but as it expanded beyond, and legions spent years far from Italy, they replaced their loyalty to the Republic, with a loyalty to their generals, (out of bribes of plunder), and this loyalty so superceded loyalty to government, that the generals of different regions, marched on each other, in chaotic decades of civil war.

This is true today. The later western states of America have a great inherent rejection of DC, than the states that have been under federal rule longer. Likewise, resentment to the federal government increasing each decade, may be due to expansion and collapse from the federal government increasing power through its naturally increasing seniority derives.
Thus Montesquieu writes, the focus on morality and spirit of government, by the people, is replaced by a worship and following of individual leaders. And this is certainly true today. The federal government, is so far flung, in so many ways, people today focus less on its spirit and morality, and more on particular leaders; and pointedly this is more true among the hero-worshippers of Barrack and Hilary, god bless them, than conservatives, whose adulation for the Rands, Palins, and Rubio’s of the political world shifts, evaporates, and reemerges in a focus on the failure of government, rather than a the cult of personality. America has grown too large, and federal government in enough ways, for the common good to be lost.

Yet let us not sugarcoat constitutional government and three branches. The argument the three branches check each other, simply pales before the notion of government, policing government semi-absurd; That the concentration of power in a few, makes the few vulnerable to those more powerful.

The problem with separation of church and state, it focuses on religion per se, rather than the wisdoms of religion. The wisdoms of religion, Christianity’s belief in love and sharing, and its terms, on the face of it, very useful tenets for government; the essential rejection of religion, per se, is vague and cloudy, as it eliminates all religion, without once focusing on specific wisdoms of religion. Thus specific ideas are not considered, as the category they are under, rejected.

One thing, I and the supreme court inquires into then, is the right to abridge speech, or even discriminate. If Congress may make no law therein regarding, may a head of household or boss limit speech? They are not congress. If Congress has no right to, may you? Jefferson’s interpretation seems based that if the federal government may not, the state still can. Yet the 14th amendment is about securing rights the federal government goes by. So to me the issue, of whether if congress may make no law regarding, can entities or states, for they are not congress? The intent of the constitution is unclear and long has been here, to me, as well the reasoning to any firm decision on the matter.

You couldn’t buy a condom legally in Connecticut, in 1966. That’s prima facie backwards. So the supreme court stepped in, and said that is wrong, albeit not straightforwardly, by valueing the privacy of individual intention, and not the right to avoid reproduction. One would want a federal government to step in on that type of repression of its subjects. So there are planes federal authority should exercise in regarding state moralities; regarding an injunction or imposition of Catholicism, whose part of Christianity, differs from the first three gospels, as the new testament itself, like many good intentioned things, like education, and sports, are compromised, out of fear, from design, of a good history.

It’s not hard to miss, how often litigation against the state, fails, because the judiciary defends the state. While the problem is we need a better way of resolving disputes, that there are just forms good, or bad; for resolving history; that the problem is form of government itself; the doctrine of sovereign immunity, where one can’t sue the state, without the state’s consent is ludicrious and malevolent. Authority must be grounded in challenges, to remain authority, or then let other authority be sought. The notion the state is good, because these rights we have are good, or better than worse states, can not lead to a stasis where the state has no responsibilities for its behavior, where the welfare of state, supercedes the welfare of anything else. Before the 11th amendment in Chisholme vs George, it was agreed, the judiciary must handle disputes between states and citizens. Then the 11th amendment protected states from suits sby individuals out of state. The 11th amendment then, is a very worthy debate. Then in the 1880s can Hans V. Lousiana, where because bonds invested in were not paid off, because they were used to fund flood relief, so one can not sue the state. On that I agree, a state is not a bank, it is primarily an entity with far wider ranging concerns; constituting a legitimate risk investors must consider. Yet on political matters, such as the violations of making decisions in peaceful assembly locally, by local officials, who are also neither state nor people, violating the tenth amendment; these are of a political nature, and that is what the state nature is about, politics, and not banking. Often Sovereign Immunity protects the state from the effects of its negligience, such as in public hospitals or injuries and loss through its sewer operation or property maintenance; and that invoacation here, also makes no sense, for manifested ably, the state would question itself and adapt, as is natural.

Again, let us Jefferson’s separation of church and state; as, existing at a federal level: To limit federal government: To avoid the imposition of a federal religion upon state religions(New England states and others, supported a state church) And to keep states free to regulate religion as they see fit. The wall is between federal and state. The wall is against big federal government. As governor of Virginia, Jefferson proclaimed several thanksgiving, which, back in those halycon days, would last several, not one day. And there would be fasting and prayer, not gorging and tv football.

Jefferson’s simple goal was no tyranny to the federal government, by having a weak federal government with limited powers, able to solve the issues of the articles of confederation. The tenth amendments reservation of powers to the state or the people, must encompass the regulation of religion, especially in so as the first amendment outlaws congressional regulation of religion, therefor, that regulation must be left for the states.

Jefferson’s anti-federalism is signaled in his opposition to a national bank; as no specific power allows that. It will be a breach to unlimit federal government. Jefferson famously argued all laws necessary to the welfare of the people, not all laws convenient. In other words, echoes of the distant refrain, there’s got to be a better way to achieve the same results. By emphasizing conforming to the limitations of government, rather than achieveing goals by expanding government, Jefferson, the lawyer, is essentially speaking to the nature of contracts, being complicated enough, to achieve goals within limits; compromise manifest.

Before the Constitution, people were concerned about standing armies, about monopolies. Couldn’t you have a bill of rights, or Christian principles, the mere principles of good. As Patrick Henry says, the constitution fails to delineate it’s reasons for being and goals, and fails to be a contract between states, for only states would have the power to stand up to it.

Because there weren’t scores of religion as in the first constitutions, atheism has set to restrict and avoid federal endorsement of any; though before, they endorsed most, seeing worship as a positive thing.

Julius Ceasar, or Jesus Christ?

May 6, 2013

Julius was assassinated, by widespread conspiracy, about 12 years before Jesus was born. Both had “last names” that were not real last names, but adopted. “Ceasar” is a name for “king” or “Dictator” and “Christ” is a name for a “real” or “saved” human. “Ceasar” might imply a certain genius, “Christ”, a more active state, than “being”.

Now whereas Jesus was born and heralded and searched for, as King of the Jews; Julius had to scrap and commit crimes and bribe and fight, to attain the position, Governor of Gaul. And whereas Jesus’s being King of the Jews, might have automated so ordaining of power and destiny, Julius had to fight 7 years in the gallic mountains against unruly, at least according to History, Gallic, Germanic, and later British Tribes. Nevertheless, Jesus, in his element, reigned as Supreme as he was, and Ceasar, defeated Gallic insurrections, each year, poising him to unite a fractured Rome, warring against itself, as other generals commanded their troops, to such loyalty as to fight other roman generals, commanding their troops, specifically, Pompei and Octavius. Thus while the faction of John the Baptist, pressed forth, to herald Jesus to greater success, the factions of Pompei and Octavius, pressed and forced Julius to triumph.

And yet both were pyrich victories. Jesus, led to Christianity, Ceasar, upon his death, to a Roman Empire; both of which had the same subtle historical goals of declining tribal life; of declining the paganism, that relied on tribalism, to be effective, and a real metaphysic. Christianity, accepts the state, as that contrary faction it may in theory overcome, and the Roman Empire, spiraled out of control and into the lower standard of polity, which to this day, good Christians, and good service, tries to oppose and forgive, in a more natural and godly morality, than an atheistic state.

John the Baptists heralding of Jesus, as more accepted holy men may do; is like Pompei’s mentoring of Jesus, until they were forced to fight, decades later. And yet it may be undeniable that life was better, before Jesus and Julius, that times under Pompei, and with John the Baptist, freeer and better. That both Julius and Jesus were vehicles that led to further oppression by historical structure, that while they were both very superior to their competitors in spirit and war; among if the greatest, of what they do, of all time; you can not deny, the Roman Empire, Julius enabled by holding together a Roman Republic fracturing apart from it’s size, was far worse than life in the republic; and that though Jesus be the perfect leader we sought; there have been no perfect leaders since then, so tight his domain he left..

John notes the Pharisees and vipers; pompei notes Rome fracturing and fissuring from powerful generals gaining loyalty from troops, via plunder of war; and both led to one greater and eclipsing. John reminds all of their common ancestor of Abraham, the good roman generals, reminded the people of the morality and diplomacy of the Roman Republic which united and created them. When Jesus was baptized by John, a dove flew by, saying, you are my chosen son, and Heaven opened up. Under Pompei’s mentorship, the governorship of Gall opened up for the politician and official, Ceasar, that would lead to his saga of holding together a republic growing too large, and prone to horrible civil wars because of it. Thus, their mentors, associated, with the path before their protégés. Ceasar was like the holy ghost compared to Pompei, and Jesus, to John as well, for they both had historical destiny before them, to become the best there’s ever been; even while that cult of greatness, in both case, had the tragic downside of making the known world inferior, to its pagan and pre-empire polities.

When Jesus says, “It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that precedeth out of the mouth of god.” 1) He reminds us both Julius and Jesus, were established through books, gospels, and in Ceasars case, the notable history he kept and published of his gallic campaigns. 2) It evokes the sieges armies back then go through, the lack and primacy of food, and how spirit, and favor of higher power. It evokes how success is grounded upon the greater godliness; and that an army winning on its stomach, only half true; Spirit and divinity, being the other half. As Ceasar tried to subdue Gaul, where they lived on corn more than grain, he was not tempted to live and let live; but grow the republic for the glory of Rome. The Devil urging Jesus to prove himself by jumping from a cliff; very much the military axiom of Not doing the foolish thing. Jesus is all about resisting temptation; which a prime tenet of good generals.

Who can not see the similiarity between the Devil taking Jesus to a high mountain, and offering him the world, would he submit; and Julius, scaling the alps where the galls live and don’t like Rome, and wondering what to do. As Jesus chose the Lord, the jewish lord no less, and resisted temptation again; so Julius consistently reminds himself to behave, and not let the cruelty of war, enact his vengeance upon gallic towns and cities. Jesus offered a light, to the way of death of society; To be sure, Roman encroachment upon Gall, was no light, but a false one of historical significance, and yet Ceasar, did lead Rome to a pacified Gall, and then Rome herself, to civil order under his reign, upon defeating the other generals.

Jesus takes fishermen and makes them fishers of men. Julius demands soldiers and makes them soldiers. Jesus went to synagogues around Syria and Galilee and preached and healed. Syria was a known spiritual religious proud place. Julius went to Gall and Germany, france and Britain, not healing and preaching, but putting down insurrections and organizations and villians against Rome: Two totally different natures. Jesus, for his victories and demonstrations of Spirit, soon had people following him. Julius tried and did make friends with the numerous tribes of Germany and Gall, one by one. And yet, they would fall against him, under the leadership of militant bararians who would annually rouse against Rome, and did the people following Jesus around Galillee, continue to follow him? And weren’t the tribal distinctions to be dissolved by Rome, more and more, by state; and weren’t the people’s of Syria, uniting in following Jesus, and so forgetting the tribes they come from? In this sense, Jesus ruled not the jews, but peoples of Syria. And Julius, not the people of Rome, at least not until the tribes of gall were dealt with. Multitudes of people followed Jesus. Multitudes of soldiers, Julius. Jesus said, blessed were the meek. Julius, blessed loyalty and fortitude, with reward. Jesus blessed the humane and human side of character, the mourning, the hungering for righteousness, the merciful, and pure. Whereas Julius valued, strength, endurance, faith, and loyalty. And here they differ. The Julius men were about restricting themselves to prevail, doing great things, by being less; such; whereas Jesus proclaimed passion and character and fulfillment and manifestation, into the greatest and richest parts of character. Jesus was not about the sparse, but those living fully; whereas the roman ethic was quite a paucity, a hardship, a tradition of the nobility of less; that allows a constrained morality, wants propriety and form; has an absent dimension, to be sure, where Jesus had a dimension of spirit, so important to his followers, to transmit spirit further; yet the spirit of Rome, was to spread. Needless to say, the spirit of Rome, equated with the spirit of Christianity, equals the end of, and removal of, old ways; from hundreds of tribes around Europe, to medieval dark ages, why they called it the dark ages, no more tribes around Europe; and from hundreds of religions, a pantheon of palpable quiet phenonoma to unify and query, to the under ten major religions we have now. Needless to say the gospel is the story traveling, by foot, around the middle east; and Ceasar;s history, regard his traveling around northern Europe, with thousands of soldiers. So they say. So it is written.

——————————————————————————————
So what is the relevance of this literary, historical irony? Coincident initials? Or historical design, revealing a pointed creation of history with irony in mind? Karma?

The forebearance, resourcefulness, spirit and discipline of Ceasar; the purity of Jesus: The Kingdoms of God and Heaven are important. The KIngdom of God, explains how History is possible. History might not reveal the Kingdom of God, and survive, in its nature; and that makes Jesus the potential gamechanging transcender he is and we aspire to; The Kingdom of Heaven, which John preached as well, as near, whereby, repent! for history is over soon, for a new reality, say you as an individual are done, and part of larger mind now. But the value of understanding Ceasar’s rival currency, is he is dealing with Crime; at several levels. War is a crime, making men soldiers a crime, plunder, keeping plunder, using it to bribe, to buy off whole people’s in exchange for their favor and popular reflection; Ceasar is about crime, and the perversions of politics war reflects. Now if we look at the earth and human beings about us; contradicted that be by media; there is not only the domain of the kingdom of god; apart, dwarfing, making irrelevant any other societal impression or creation; for in that ghostly so reality; all the crime, perpetuated upon, and corrupting perversity, that holds back the higher classes from a more sensitive history and ability; is within the ghost of the kingdom of god as well. Where John may preach the kingdom of heaven is near; and try that ploy to reduce society to pure righteousness; The proclamation of Jesus baptizing with the Holy Ghost, is the promise of the revelation of the kingdom of god to people, and that ghostly state revealed; for the kingdom of heaven lives in and with the kingdom of god, going all through earth’s diurnal course, minute and second by minute and second together, a great big one of humanity, living on its limitations together, both after and physical life.

We claim to look at this ghostly life, or at least feel its ghostliness; in that ghostliness a totally different way; a way as it really is, a way of less, but also a way where and how crime and all the bad things and bad ways and negative and way of dying, society and history be full of; even as history not reveal the kingdom of god, and therefore the extent of crime, perversity, and degradation unrealized, and yet to be revealed, as a political concern and reality; it must be seen as parcel to a spiritual reality, parcel to a state or kingdom of still, ghostly, being. All sorts of things are done to this state; things that are secret, like that state itself, to history, ostentasibly: Nor can that state rise above itself and confess or take responsibility; for it is not allowed, and frustratingly denied, as contrived status that is.

Thus, were one, to confess: to me: I would help show how it involves the many in this state. Any confession to me, of guilt, responsibility, would lead to an exposure of the way and whole, and a whole network of worst crime, enabled like history and society through the kingdom of god that can put on the show, humans can not; would cease. We live in a world, where crime is all about, classes, allegedly controlled, jobs based on conforming to this way; pornography, and all that is unknown to the media, yet is; and though these offenses exists, parcel to a state of the kingdom of god, that is not spoken of, they are almost not felt, or revealed: because they are not known by media, and media sets the dimensions of discussion. So how can one confess, even the sins upon me, let alone all, unless Heaven allows it, or the requisite seriousness conducted?

Must it be done in the highest rarfied echelons of Society, like the judiciary, or pinnacles of religion, or town meetings? For society flows from there, what trickles down, or has trickled down, like it or not, we subsist on. And what seems and is said to be, really isn’t; and what and how really is, not known. Oh, there is negotiation, I pray to Heaven, but what exactly do I pray for, and how can the haze occur? On the one, I pray some reveal the wrongs put on through them, put on because they are the kingdom of god, and many are implicated, and so they will need help, and so I will show them what really is, and possible know how to create some better reality. This is the metaphor for ceasar,trying to work with the different tribes of Europe, trying to gain movement, through this and that that may enable it.

The problem is that there is no confession, for such the way, of crime, behind the scenes, critically unreported, through further control, would cease, and a new reckoning again. The tribes, though, Ceasar faced, fought, made friends with, their names suggest own pagan ways. The Nervii, well, focus on the nerves with friends and what makes seem, and what shock the pressure upon the heart. The Aduei, can we say good by and stay, can you leave? For from there, that salvation, not of justice, but pure, but Christian, and of terminology, rather than group discussion.

So one knows of bad things I may reform; But one is hard pressed to say so, not out of fear of implicating many, not out of lacking trust in me; not in the illness and finess of creation; but in that the way, outside History, but secretly effecting History cease, and a new reckoning begin. Julius would look at the world and try to straighten it out, figure out what is really going on, be motivated by the recognition and knowledge, crime goes on through the kingdom of god, reform and spirituality go together, a spiritual nondeceptive government is possible. Jesus would look at the world, see the dualism between god and man, see the skitzophrenia, the knowledge of a secret world, osmosized with God causes; yet critically have, not necessarily the divinity of a winner, but the ordination of Heaven that comes with the Jews being the father of your creation and design, the lord intervenes for Jesus, whereas Ceasar represents, like John the Baptist, the sweat of the brow, the innovation of the man, the feeling and compassion that leads to success; should we generalize.

===========================================================================

Healing, jesus, conquer, fortitude, governor not gall equals campaign. divinity close to chest.
Healing people through Syria, like conquering galls, fortitude and skill, superiority, divinity. The aquitani: To acquit someone, basic justice, basic spirituality, point out kingdom of god, the body, how it’s controlled, so individual, 1, a part of everyone, and 2 not that body, or at least merely operating that body. Likewise, the belgae, the beautiful, if one is to be beautiful, one must be explaining how earth and humans really are. This honesty is pagan essence, or foundation to there thereof, and you explain to someone how no one did it. To get out of the state of injustice to the state of justice. Ceasar and Christ, their world hasa proximity to themselves, close to them, their world emenates from. How do you describe the world in appealing terms. It is more the lack of apprehension by the listener. There’s a lack of apprehension of the same thing, beauty describes. For the individual today, is bogged down, in his primary identification as a reproducer, without apprehending what is reproduced, maybe that is the context facilitating ablest communication, and yet that is hard to apprehend, what we do as reproducers. Reproduction, is what we are resisting, a knowledge of what we reproduce.

Able communication is like moving to a new area, which is what the warlike helvetti did. The helvetti,has rich men, 12 towns, and 400 villages, if you believe history.

A subtle shift in leadership, from one unruly gall to another, can make a difference in the heart. Perhaps it is shifts in the heart we seek that understands what we produce. A shift in heart to certain understadings, whereby the listener, hears better, as my heart climbs up to my left ear. We understand speaking truth is important. An evil rich man, tried to lead to the helvettie to war, and they found out he was crooked, the penalty for which, being burned alive, in chains, his ten thousand supporters came and escaped him, but he apparently soon committed suicide. Perhaps this requires a magistratial air. THis removed sense signifies the literal difference, a bush or Obama can have on our herts.

The change in heart, that realizes a criminal doesn’t have to be caught to talk. ANd yet this way, of sacrificial justice, is exactly that. It goes on, they get caught, and then they need help. IF only we could have a change of heart and talk about this, before their claim by history is manifest. So the Helvetti journey, ornery, strong, looking for trouble, leaving their homeland to look for trouble, and take over somewhere, and Ceasar governor of gall, hears about this, and like a juvenile outwitting a nine year old, takes out a bridge, intending to cut them off, and so, we try to shift in our heart to a more apprehensive place, my god the word apprehensive itself, needs to change, letters drub off my heart, congeal have to talk, yeech————————————————-How to change my heart?

As predicted, CEasar, in third person in book, told their envoys, who got the job, if you can consider it a job, their richest men. Don’t know why they didn’t send the poor and normal. Probably because this is historical, and history, when not flowing through the state, flows through the rich upper class, so the upper class is more corrupt, and prone to controls and marks, that may make them prone to war; having been hurt as a child perhaps; So Julius, who is probably doing this for profit, but it’s his history book, says, no, you can’t march through provence; I don’t trust you, and you guys were rude to a counsel of mine a few years ago, nor nice to one of our armies, now that I recall. Now if the envoys were poor, they might have given their word on safety and the oath mean something; or gone back and said to the guys, we should go home, or sneak by another day, though that may have effected their pride; lord knows how played historical tribes can be.

But what happened, Ceasar fortified the river area, and the Helvetti, had to say “hell” and go through the mountains, on a path so thin, it required the attention of the sequestri locals there, who declined to give it as well, perhaps Ceasar coerced them? Would it be in his history book? The helvettie, appealed to the adieu to help. And this is where it stands. Hell of course, a horrible ejaculation, insofar it’s hard to escape, which is why treat yourself well. Now, this is what happens. There are people all around they are moving them. This is some bypass of vic

It being Ceasar’s first year on the job, he still doesn’t like them coming closer to the subjected or conquered French lands of tribes, and quickly home to rome and back with a few more legions. A few gallic tribes try to stop him on the way back, they merely delay him a week. When he returns, the helvetti are pillaging everybody, several tribes, in each direction. Is this pretext romans make up? Are the helvetti condemned and doomed to slings and slingshots whose volley return are boulders of Rome? Is this sacrifice of an army? Is that the metaphor? or dark etchings upon roman brick rock? Step into the earth? Chilling, the sense of the metaphor, history, we’ve become numb to.

The plundered tribes appealed to Ceasar for Help, according to ceasar, and Ceasar defeated them, and they took and eventually ceasar tracked em down, and they sent their rich envoys again, offering, we’ll go where you tell us and stay there for peace. The Romans, and Ceasars great uncle had suffered a defeat by then a few generations ago; so like Iraq, this might have been of payback for fighting Iraq 1, Bush’s dad.But he l

Ceasar doesn’t let it go. The condemned tribe is very sad. Ceasar admits he is indigant of the defeat some generations ago. But he laughs off the haughtiness with the old, canard, fortune piles high upon the wicked, so when fortune changes, they will be hurt more.

So the Helvettie take off, and the romans follow 4-5 miles behind; one rear guard, and the other advance guard, skirminshing along the way. The morale that one false victory, does not equal a stronger team; when their rear quard defeated roman calvary; tended more battle, than wise for the helvettie, who should have just led them on a long march through the woods of Germany into Russia or something. So the cars are spent by. Obviously some rate inside my head needs to be typed tobe true.

We must spend an evening, evening a shift in my heart. We must spend an evening, how easily death can be accepted, we must spend an evening acquitting everyone. This is serious, and now that I’ve got tommy, we’ve got explore; yet there is noTommy. But today we feel the frank damage to earth, environmentally, pressing up against, as if that is where success is grounded in, and that is where we go; restoring a natural world. ……

The adieu tribe, says goodbye to the people for the world of the mind about that must help